Guv’s budget is leaked and you can find it here.

Excerpt from page 123 that continues to demonstrate the (lack of) fine leadership on the judicial council and at the AOC

_________________________________

The Administration recognizes that, like the rest of state government, the Judicial
Branch has growing costs related to employee retirement, health care, and other areas.
The Budget recognizes these costs and provides an augmentation of $100 million
General Fund to support trial court operations and $5 million General Fund to support
the state judiciary, but like the rest of state government these costs must be managed.
The Administration has worked with state employee groups to require current employees
to contribute approximately half of the normal retirement costs, pursuant to the Public
Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013. In contrast, the Judicial Branch still has manycourt employees who do not contribute towards their retirement costs.

__________________________________

Discussion:

I suppose you all know that it is unlawful for any private company to top-load its pension benefits for execs and leave the serfs to fend for themselves. So why should the Judicial Council permit only the executives within their administrative offices to top load their pensions by paying their share when every other state employee has to pay for about half of their benefits?

Why are judicial branch pension contributions ( the expenditure of public funds that does not meet an acceptable standard of good government) private information (according to the state controllers office attorneys) when everything else (their pay, their benefits and their budgets) is public information?

A suggestion to our legislators: Find out who these people are ( we actually have a list someone provided us but we can’t seem to confirm it with supporting government documentation or an alternative source as proof… ) and eliminate their jobs and the budget for salaries and benefits that go with them permanently.

Send an unambiguous message to San Francisco. After all, it is these same platinum paid people that have orchestrated this unprecedented pain upon the trial courts and the public in an effort to send a message to Sacramento.

You can find the governors budget proposal in the link below. In short, if you thought this fiscal year was bad for the trial courts, wait until next fiscal year.

And as usual for the past couple of years, budget change proposals submitted by the “old state court system” continue to get approved and they get to chug along with increased growth, increased employment and increased budgets while the trial court system continues to disintegrate.

On a positive note: More money appears to come out of the construction fund which just means less of a bounty for the thieves who have been misappropriating those funds for their own financial gain.

Not to mention a complete failure to restructure and relocate the AOC as recommended in the SEC.

And, last year didn’t the Legislature give additional money to the Branch with strings attached that provided it was to be spent on trial court operations, only to have a substantial portion of it hijacked for AOC salaries and other non-trial court expenditures?

Is it any wonder the Governor doesn’t propose to give the Judiciary more money? Why should he, when the Judiciary leadership has utterly failed to address its most egregious examples of waste and corruption and defies the Legislature’s directives?

Appears to be a clear message of “Get your act together, Tani, because you are not getting any more money until you prove that you have.”

“The Administration is committed to ongoing solvency of the state budget, which
requires changing business as usual and implementing ongoing efficiencies within the Judicial Branch.

The Budget includes total funding of $3.3 billion ($1.3 billion General Fund and $2 billion other funds) in 2014‑15 for the Judicial Branch, of which $2.5 billion is provided to support trial court operations.

Over the last two years the state has relied heavily on the use of one‑time reserves to mitigate reductions that would have impaired the courts. The state expected that the trial courts would use the extra time the reserves afforded to take actions to operationalize ongoing reductions.

The Administration recognizes that 2014‑15 will be a challenging year for the trial courts as the one‑time mitigation measures will have been exhausted.

One of the key issues for the Judicial Branch will be how it uses technology to
increase efficiency..As the Judicial Branch begins to develop and identify a long‑term statewide technology plan, the Administration will work collaboratively with the Judicial Council to develop a sustainable and comprehensive funding plan that furthers the goals of the Act and benefits trial courts and the users of the courts.

The Administration has worked with state employee groups to require current employees to contribute approximately half of the normal retirement costs, pursuant to the Public Employees’Pension Reform Act of 2013. In contrast, the Judicial Branch still has many court employees who do not contribute towards their retirement costs.

The Judicial Branch must continue to implement uniform standards, employee
compensation changes, and operational efficiencies with the goal of increasing access to justice.”

So this is really the cj’s second full budget during the economic recovery and the branch gets punished again as every other state department gets to share the significant restoration of $$ into their budgets. It is very clear now that branch leadership is ineffective, at best. The cj is out of her league and has surrounded herself with: Steve Jahr, retired, tired and adds nothing, but is a double- dipping offender; Curtis Child, cast off by the State as a failure at Child support, but salvaged by the chief. Head lobbyist for the branch during the worst period of getting slammed by the legislators, but given an award for being outstanding by the chief, then promoted; Curt Soderlund another State cast-off taken in who is despised by those who remember him when at the State and puts off everyone new at the state by his nasty demeanor; Jody Patel, competent but being dragged down by her dog Spot and the cj’s other reclamation projects listed above; must add David Yamasaki, the invited tag along who really is ONLY just another pretty face. His words are as hollow as is head, but is there to look pretty. These are the branch “leaders” who meet with the Gov’s staff and DOF. To say the cj is incompetent for surrounding herself with ineffective people is really too easy at this point. What makes this worse is that these people lack the integrity to accept their failure, to step aside and not let their incompetence continue to destroy the good people who actually work for the court. These “people” (I can’t call them “leaders” anymore) don’t have respect for the public they serve to get out of the way and stop the decline of public access to justice in California. Time has shown that Jahr, Child, Patel, Soderlund, Yamasaki et al., are killing the branch, but the cj is responsible and it’s pathetic that she doesn’t see it.

If you were the Governor, would you give a bunch of additional money to “leaders” who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be liars and experts at misappropriating and wasting public funds?

Can anyone identify just one act of “leadership” that the Chief Justice has demonstrated in the last three years that is worthy of following? Just one? No.

Branch “leadership” has done nothing in the last year that would warrant an increase in the judicial branch budget, and the Governor’s proposed budget reflects that. It would just be throwing good money after bad.

Neglecting mention was the 100 million going to the trial courts to cover their increasing costs associated with human resources, as well as an additional 5 million going to the “old state court system” for the same purpose that while appreciated, was hardly worth mention as it’s mostly a wash. Most of those funds appear to have come out of the construction budget anyways and would serve a better purpose by being redirected.

The proposed budget “increase” for the Judicial Branch in 2014-2015 does not even equate to a net increase from the current budget. For all intents and purposes, the Judicial Branch is seeing yet another significant decrease in its funding. As previously mentioned during 2013, why would the Governor, or the decision makers within the Legislature, give another dime to Tani and her buffoons. HRH-2 has made it abundantly clear that she has not a clue about what is going on around her. I’m sure that she is asking Mr. Jahr-head and others at the AOC to create more charts. Charts are the answer to all of their problems. If you have good charts, the Governor and Legislature will undoubtedly pony-up another $1 Billion in funding. As she previously said, how could anyone possibly disagree with her, the case is clear.

Unless and until the decks are cleared within the Chief Justice’s chambers, the Judicial Council and the administrative wing of the AOC, nothing is going to improve. Those working within the Branch will continue to suffer, as will the members of the public trying to have their issues addressed in the trial courts.

I cannot express deeply enough what a disaster State Trial Court Funding has become, all because of the “take-over” of the Branch by the egomanical King George I.

“I appreciate the Governor’s fiscal prudence as well as his recognition of the need for reinvestment in the judicial branch, and I will continue my discussions with the Governor, stressing the critical unmet needs of the judicial branch. The branch has undergone $1 billion in cuts during the last six years. Californians rely on a fully functioning court system to protect their constitutional rights, secure protective orders, resolve child custody issues, and settle business disputes. I hope to continue this productive dialogue with the executive and legislative branches in the next few months about the needs of those who rely on our courts. Access to justice must be meaningful, universal, and fair— it’s a fundamental right in a functioning democracy.”

Blah, blah, blah, blah. If she thinks that such platitudes will win anyone over, let along the Governor and the Legislature, then she’s dumber than I give her credit for. And I give her a lot of credit.

“I hope to continue this productive dialogue with the executive and legislative branches in the next few months about the needs of those who rely on our courts”; and I am getting the productive message that there is no way in Hell they are going to give me more money if I don’t stop the fraud, waste and abuse in order to meet those needs.

In the language of Sacramento-speak, the Chief Justice used up the last of her remaining “political capital” when she “collaborated” with the Governor in convincing him to veto the legislation applying open meeting requirements to the judicial branch advisory committees, promising the Governor that the branch would draft its own “transparency” policy.

And what did Chief Justice “I believe in absolute transparency” then do? Well, she had her anointed minions draft a “transparency” policy that had so many exemptions that it virtually guaranteed that those meetings would remain shut and secret. As justification for this, branch “leadership”, including the Office of the Chief Justice, cited “ethical concerns.” This, from what has to currently be, the most unethical administration in all of state government.

And then the branch demanded “more money” as a reward for this behavior.

“More money” isn’t going to fix what is really wrong in the California Judicial Branch, and everyone in Sacramento that has more that six active brain cells has figured this out.

As they ask on the ABC news program: If you were Governor Brown, “what would you do?” Especially given the fact that Governor Brown is up for re-election in November.

Judicial Branch “leadership” has the reputation in Sacramento of being liars and hypocrites. They have collectively earned that reputation the old-fashioned way. They earned it.

Published today, Thursday, January 9, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dizeo:

Governor Adds $100 Million for Courts in New California Budget
By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – Governor Jerry Brown on Thursday proposed a budget with $3.2 billion for California’s courts, an increase of $105 million over last year. The new budget largely eliminates local trial court reserve funds in favor of one big Judicial Council-controlled pot for rainy day expenses.

“There was great disparity among individual courts, and it’s one of the key, final pieces to moving to a state funded court system,” Department of Finance Director Michael Cohen told reporters Thursday morning. “We do add a $100 million in the budget for trial courts to help them continue to transition to the new system.”

He said some trial courts have weathered California’s recessionary economy and drastic budget cuts better than others. The additional funds should address “some of the historical inequities among the courts,” Cohen said.

He commended a new funding formula worked out by a working group of judges and court clerks last year that allocates money based on a court’s workload and case filings.

According to a flurry of announcements that preceded the budget release, Brown’s budget was expected to be unveiled Friday, but was instead leaked Wednesday night and then officially announced Thursday morning.

The funding mechanism within the new budget completes a transformation from a system that relied in part on reserve funds controlled by local trial courts. Those funds are now limited to one percent of the local court’s budget while the remaining lion’s share will be controlled by the courts’ top rule-making body, the Judicial Council, where most members are appointed by the chief justice.

One of the key provisions outlined in Brown’s budget summary for the judiciary is a plan to ask all trial court employees to contribute to their pensions.

“There is a longstanding disparity in trial court employees in terms of how much they pay into their pensions,” Cohen said. “There are some employees in the court system that still pay nothing into their pensions. We need to move toward employees paying into roughly half the cost of their pensions.”

Though pressed by reporters, Cohen declined to say whether the pension mandate will apply to employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the judiciary’s administrative agency based in San Francisco. The top 30 administrators in the AOC enjoyed a top-loaded pension perk where the taxpayers contributed 22 percent on top of salary to the administrators’ pension accounts without any matching contribution from the individual administrator.

Under pressure from the Legislature, the administrative office last year gave up its perk for new hires, but those who had been receiving the benefit were grandfathered, with a state contribution capped at 5 percent.

At Thursday morning’s press conference, Cohen said, “We would like to see all public employees in the state move to that,” referring to the goal of having state employees contribute half the cost of their pensions.

Brown’s budget summary gave an additional $15 million to the judiciary as a “one-time investment” from the general fund, part of a five-year infrastructure plan for California.

Speaking with reporters in December, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she expected the governor’s January budget to be “fiscally conservative, parsimonious,” but that she had been meeting with members of the Department of Finance regularly.

“We don’t agree and we refute their numbers and they refute our numbers. But its an honest, candid conversation,” said the chief justice in December.

In a statement Thursday, Cantil-Sakauye said, “I appreciate the Governor’s fiscal prudence as well as his recognition of the need for reinvestment in the judicial branch, and I will continue my discussions with the Governor, stressing the critical unmet needs of the branch.”

I guess we’ll see a finalized “transparency” policy around the time we’ll see the Trial Court Financial Bill of Rights. I wish the gov would take more of a offensive tact with the thugs running the judicial branch than the defensive tact he is taking via the money spigot. Aren’t the feds ever gonna find time to investigate these humps in the judicial branch? No apologies to the Unionman. I want to be sued so we can see how long it takes to get a tort action going in superior court in California.

Published today, Thursday, January 9, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:

Brown Pencils In $100 Million for Trial Courts
By Cheryl Miller

SACRAMENTO — In a 2014-15 budget proposal that earmarks billions of dollars in new funding for schools, Medi-Cal and welfare, Gov. Jerry Brown is offering just $105 million in extra money to California courts.

The $107 billion state spending plan, leaked to the media Wednesday night but officially unveiled by the governor Thursday morning, appropriates $100 million in ongoing funding for trial courts and $5 million for appellate courts. It also contains $15 million in one-time money for building maintenance.

In a measured statement, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she appreciated the governor’s “recognition of the need for reinvestment in the judicial branch.” But the additional money is less than the $266 million judiciary officials say they need just to keep courts operating at their current levels. And it’s a far cry from the $1 billion that Cantil-Sakauye has said the branch needs to serve the public effectively.

“Everyone says that they need more money,” Brown told reporters Thursday. “We’ve given courts more. We want them to be able to manage more effectively, quite frankly.”

Brown’s budget blueprint also makes clear that not only is he unwilling to lift a controversial 1 percent cap on trial court reserves that starts on July 1, he’s taking the new policy one step further. “Going forward, reserve funds for the trial courts will be held at the state level,” his proposal says.

Trial court judges and executives have complained that the reserves cap will hinder cash flow, threatening basic operations such as payrolls and ultimately forcing additional cuts.

“This year’s proposed budget will leave the courts in even worse shape,” Consumer Attorneys of California president John Feder said in press statement. “Make no mistake, there will be more court closures, more reductions in service hours and more delays for California citizens and businesses seeking resolution of their disputes,” he said.

The governor’s budget also warns the judiciary that it needs to rein in employee costs.

Approximately one in three trial court workers, whose compensation is set by negotiated labor contracts, pay nothing toward their pensions, according to the Department of Finance. Requiring them to pay half those costs would save the branch $23 million annually, the department said. The budget does not suggest employees at the appellate courts or the Administrative Office of the Courts should contribute more.

“The Administration is committed to ongoing solvency of the state budget, which requires changing business as usual and implementing ongoing efficiencies within the Judicial Branch,” the proposal says.

The overall budget reflects a vastly improved revenue scenario from previous years thanks to the state’s short-term tax hike on its wealthiest residents and a growing economy. And it spells out the prudence-preaching governor’s spending priorities: schools, social programs and debt reduction. Courts, which have endured $1 billion in cuts and shifted funding over the last six years, fall farther down the list.

Lawmakers seem to agree with the governor’s prerogatives. The Recorder reviewed the budget-related statements of 25 legislators on Thursday and just four mentioned court funding. Only two of those specifically said courts should receive additional money.

The constitution gives lawmakers until June 15 to send a final budget to the governor.

Queen Tani is going to the bring the entire branch down. She has no credibility with the Governor’s office, the legislature and many within our own branch. She supports the legacy of the arrogant King George whose insistence on controlling the entire judicial branch got us into this mess. Queen Tani has completely failed by not controlling the expenses at the AOC including the waste of half a billion on CCMS, handing out raises to AOC employees while the trial courts lay off valued employees and close courthouses and by refusing to enact the most important provisions of the SEC report including moving the operation out of the Crystal Palace at 455 Golden Gate. Her claims of transparency are contradicted by J Miller’s non open meeting policy and J Hull’s continuing failure to respond to legitimate requests for public information. To add insult to injury, Queen Tani kept J Bruiners in charge of branch technology despite his claims that CCMS was ready to be deployed despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. King George and Queen Tani don’t get that a branch of government as big as the California judiciary can’t be run as a dictatorship surrounded by their hand picked insiders. For the good of the branch and the citizens we serve I once again respectfully ask Queen Tani to resign so we could move forward with a qualified and independent Chief Justice . Those would be the first steps toward restoring branch credibility along with assigning King George’s legacy to the scrapheap of history.

Hmm Let me see if I understand this. HRH-2 asked for an extra 1 billion and she got only 100 million? Sounds pretty clear that the Governor and legislature aren’t buying what she’s selling. I therefore have to ask will HRH-2 have the ability to take a step back and honestly evaluate how she failed in such a major way ? Is HRH-2 capable of understanding that maybe she, her handpicked Judicial Council and AOC ” leadership” aren’t fooling anyone? If this were a business , a sports franchise or even a well run nonprofit, someone would have backed up the truck and cleaned house by now. It is really a sad state of affairs that the leadership of the California judiciary has failed all of us so totally and so completely.

Enough for another two or three trial court workers who could directly contribute to the dispensation of justice. Actually, it’s probably more like three or four court workers when benefits of this overpaid position are included in the comparison.

Definitely not a joke; jokes are supposed to be funny. There is nothing funny about the AOC establishing another useless, overpaid bureaucrat who will add nothing to the administration of justice at a time when workers are being laid off, courthouses closed, and service to the public reduced.

This is another sterling example of the tone-deaf leadership of the Chief Justice. She wonders why the Governor and Legislature won’t give her another billion dollars? All she’s got to do is look in the mirror for the reason…her feckless performance as the Judiciary’s chief administrative official.

From todays Recorder, making clear that the Governor has no plans to give the Judicial Branch any more money, the following was the Legislature’s response:

“Lawmakers seem to agree with the governor’s prerogatives. The Recorder reviewed the budget-related statements of 25 legislators on Thursday and just four mentioned court funding. Only two of those specifically said courts should receive additional money.”

Obviously the Governor and Legislature have not seen the pretty charts that Tani has put together. I’m sure once they have seen those charts, which are very pretty, the members of the Legislature will immediately fall to their knees, pull out their checkbooks, and write Tani a check for $1 Billion.,

(For those of you who don’t follow this website, the last paragraph was a joke…) Do us all a favor and resign Chief!

“Lawmakers seem to agree with the governor’s prerogatives. The Recorder reviewed the budget-related statements of 25 legislators on Thursday and just four mentioned court funding. Only two of those specifically said courts should receive additional money.”

Does anyone know which four out of the 25 specifically mentioned that the courts should receive additional money?

Recently we received a message from a former AOC employee that left the employment of the AOC as a conscientious objector after finding other employment elsewhere.

Frankly, we’re relieved to see that there are conscientious objectors that value transparency and accountability over ” a mind-numbing brainwashing by leadership where everyone in the room knows better but is afraid to argue the point, less they be singled out and fired”

You know who you are and unless you step forward we’re not going to say who you are… but thank you for confirming what most believe.

Mr. Jahr-head sent out one of the most ridiculous emails this afternoon to justices and judges, that was jointly issued by the CJA President; (CJA = Wholly owned subsidiary of the AOC), talking about the new proposed Constitutional Amendment authored by San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed could have bad consequences to judges in California…Really???? How about the rank and file Dip Stick! Why is it that Tani and Company still pay 100% of their loyalists retirement packages? Hello????? Maybe that was what Governor Brown was talking about Tani….
The only way change will occur is when Tani resigns. Only 807,615 signatures are apparently required to qualify for a Statewide Ballot Initiative. Hows the vote count going on the recall Tani movement?

In my Court, the employees are heading for the exits in droves, trying to retire under whatever scheme they can for fear of what is coming next. I cannot believe the number of loyal and dedicated public servants, some who have serve for well over 30 years, who are saying that they just don’t care anymore.

a Seems to me that the only way removing Tani would be of benefit in the big scheme of things, is if it was guaranteed that the new CJ would democratize the JC. She is just a figurehead of the greater problem of having too much control in too few hands. The problem was there before she got there, and will remain until its forced to be changed.

Better rules have to be written that force a plan of accountability when ethics breaches occur in administrative capacities aiding problems in the courts to continue (including in cases). And since the current make-up of the JC will never write rules causing their own accountability, they need to be removed so proper rules may be written.

I think it is imperative that the JC become an organization which its opened up for the members to be elected by the judges. Until proper rules are written to assure accountability; those in the inner-circle are going to keep wasting money and chasing their tales, trying to cover-up their ineptitude and conflicts of interest; and to CYA their arses.

The legislature and governor are never going to give the branch more money while the waste remains self-evident; as do the acts to avoid accountability by the “policy-writing body”.

If Tani would stop acting like a figurehead of a small, compromised group; and start acting like a CJ of the biggest state court in the nation, I think the governor and the legislature might send her a different message.

When I finally opened my email I saw HRH-2’s statement of denial regarding the budget. While she and her insiders would like for all of us to go away, I get around the state on a regular basis and the consistent word I hear is that she has no credibility, and no one has any faith in what she says. She attacked the legislature on 1208, supported CCMS and cost the taxpayers millions, ignored much of the SEC report, and makes a bunch of false claims about transparency. Those she has selected to prop her up, including Jahr, Childs, Hull and Miller and the worst of all HRH-1, only serve to undermine her more. I agree with many of the above. HRH-2 needs to resign. The one thing I can’t figure out is why HRH-1 set her up to fail? Is his arrogance so out of control that he had to have the person following him be so totally unqualified to make him look better? Pretty sad and dysfunctional indeed.

I’m speculating that HRH-1’s choice to not run for re-election was predicated on someone covering his ass as he exited the stage, This is the role that HRH-2 assumed and has been thus far successful with.

It appears it may be her only success as she takes the branch down to protect her exclusive club.

It also comes across as ill-advised blind loyalty to her predecessor and the team he put in place.

She comes up with a 3 year (now dragged out to 4 years) plan for the AOC to be evaluated and implement reforms with a belief that time heals all wounds and that if she runs out the clock, her critics will give up.

15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. Everybody knows that. Well did you know King George picked Queen Tani to be his replacement? Thanks King George.You undermined your own arrogant legacy. The sad part is the hardworking taxpayers of California are paying the price for it. Every day.

In 2010, we blogged about the slippery slope California was on and our high hopes that Tani would bring change. Sadly, it appears that the only change she has brought is an even greater divide and mistrust of the judicial branch.

Much of Cal government has moved on from the Schwarzenegger years, while the court leaders are stuck in the past still trying to cover up what they did under George to aid the Governator and themselves to fleece the public.

Knowing what I now know, I don’t think there could be any doubt that she was hand-picked to cover-up the prior CJ’s, prior Governor’s and some of the Old Guard who are still there, misdeeds.

They were eating cake while Rome burned. Now, they are doing everything possible to avoid eating crow (behind bars).

Pattie, I don’t know anything about people sleeping with their superiors to get ahead. But I know MUCH about many of the members of a criminal prostitution ring which keeps them ahead once they’ve gotten there.
pros·ti·tu·tion noun \ˌpräs-tə-ˈtü-shən, -ˈtyü-\ : the use of a skill or ability in a way that is not appropriate or respectable
1Hr, 12Min, 45Sec http://sdcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1587

Tani’s “Forward” to her predecessor’s self absorbed, mean-spirited tome that proves him to be a truly sick man, pretty much says it all:

“I knew that his visionary leadership in reorganizing and strengthening the court system and his keen intelligence and jurisprudential experience would be inspiring and beneficial. I underestimated.

Chief Justice George’s leadership in the Judicial Branch has been nothing short of legendary. He saw a disjointed, sometimes struggling collection of individual courts and transformed them into a true judicial branch of government, powered by a deliberate balance between state oversight and local control. One might inquire why Chief George would undertake such a massive restructuring of the Judicial Branch. The answer is simple yet undeniable—Chief George was committed to access to justice for all.”

I just want to be able to publicly ask the JC to clarify a policy question, i.e. who is responsible for overseeing the actions of Superior Court CEOs and to mitigate the damage should errors occur by CEOs.

I know you all will find this hard to believe, but there seems to be conflicting answers coming from the legal counsels for the CJP, JC and AOC that are preventing needed clarification on the branch’s policy.

Unfortunately, I can’t verbally ask the JC members that question under their current and proposed “open meeting rules” when they are all together and could give a consistent answer regarding the policy on this matter.

This is because only policy items placed on the agenda by AOC staff at the direction of the AOC Director and JC members, are permitted to be addressed by the public at their “open meetings”.

And that’s just me. What about judges and other court employees who have need to publicly ask for clarification of policies?

There is no such animal as a “transparent policy-writing body” that writes policies so no one can publicly ask for clarification and consistency of what they are deeming policies.

Michael, that is an incorrect statment. You have given your opinion of what the answer is, which is inconsistent with the CJP’s opinion, written in an answer to a legal complaint.

Neither your answer, nor their answer appears to have an Rule of the Court to support it. Show me the Rule if it is a clear cut answer, please. And if unable to do so, don’t you want to know what the Rule of Court is on this question?

“Reason 5: Costly mistakes can make us do stupid things
“Shouldn’t failure have taught Walter White a lesson? Hardly. Failure is not so predictable. Moreover, costly mistakes can be some of the hardest to learn from, because they are the ones we feel most obligated to rationalize. One of the best-researched decision making fallacies we know of is the sunk cost fallacy. Sometimes it’s called arguments from waste. ‘We can’t stop now, that would be a huge waste!’ Governments commit this fallacy when they continue with losing wars, often arguing that we cannot let soldiers to have died in vain. Basketball coaches do it when they continue to give greater playing time to higher draft picks even when they have sub-par performance. Indeed, studies show that companies do it routinely, by investing in failing product lines. Regular folks like you and me often do it to save face, because obviously we aren’t stupid—we just need to give our bad decisions a little more support to help them mature into the good decisions we know they truly are.
“One could argue that after Walter’s initial decision to cook meth, the sunk cost fallacy does a lot of the work of bringing his professional meth career to its peak performance. He’s constantly cleaning up after himself. Indeed, Walter frequently makes arguments from waste. How could so much cost have led to so little gain? Clearly the only solution is to cook more meth, kill the “last” person standing in the way, etc. Walter is making this argument every time we hear him say something like ‘this is the last time,’ which he seems to say about once every other episode.
“Beware, sunk costs are probably involved in all kinds of unfortunate things, from unhappy marriages to sticking with ailing vehicles to that unfortunate temptation to kill innocent witnesses. If you’re going to be a criminal, it would be better if you just tried harder to avoid being seen in the first place.”

I find it interesting that Gov Brown’s “rainy day fund” is praised while the trial court reserves are kept to 1%. No respect there. Another indication of how little credibility, if any at all is left, the judicial branch has with the executive and legislative arms. Speaking of arms, Steinberg no longer embraces his ol’ school chum Tani? No credibility there either? (sigh) Too bad for all of us who care about the trial courts and their line workers in the everyday trenches. Thanks bunches, Tani. Wish I could say “keep up the good work!” Cutesy-poo stopped working, did it, girl?

SACRAMENTO — Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye will ask for an additional $1.1 billion in state funding for California’s judiciary over the next three years at a public event scheduled Tuesday in the state capital.

The Recorder reports that the Chief “will ask for an additional $1.1 billion in state funding for California’s judiciary over the next three years at a public event scheduled Tuesday in the state capital.”

“The so-called Blueprint for Access to Justice seeks almost $875 million ‘to fully fund” existing trial court caseloads, according to a copy obtained by The Recorder. It also calls for … money for at least 50 new superior court judgeships and two new justices on the Fourth District Court of Appeal.”

You nailed it Wendy. The only thing that will save us now is Queen Tani’s resignation and the appointment of an independent and thoughtful new Chief like Justice Liu. To show how out of touch Queen Tani is , all should read the article that Wendy posted. HRH-2 has a new great propaganda campaign, no doubt with glossy and colorful charts, called “Blueprint for Access to Justice”. Despite the clear message the Governor was trying to send last week, her honor will speak out demanding yet again the branch be given 1.1 billion including incredibly funding 50 new Judgeships. The insiders at the Crystal Palace remain tone deaf to all around them and just don’t get it. Instead of asking for a billion the state doesn’t have ,they need to clean up the waste and mess at 455 Golden Gate. A good start would be to close the Crystal Palace and move to Sacramento. Isn’t that what the SEC report recommended?

You can’t make any of this stuff up. Really. So last week, the Governor trashed HRH-2’s out of touch and out of time proposal for the branch to get over a billion in funding. In doing so he politely told HRH-2 to clean up her act . Did she listen? No. Instead she and her closed circle of insiders are plowing ahead with a public campaign called a Blueprint for Justice to override the Governor and legislature. This is the very arrogance that got our branch budget cut back radically to begin with.Even the insiders at 455 Golden Gate must see how flawed this strategy is.It is time for branch leaders and otters who care about the courts to step forward and join in the many here who are requesting HRH-2 resign.

If staff are already drastically cut so that some judges have to either share staff or have no staff I’m wondering what 50 new judges will do. Sit around until the court is again fully staffed so that they can begin to hear cases?

Can’t help but notice that Tani’s “friend”, and Appellate Court Justice wannabe, Darrell Steinberg, made sure to show up for the photo op. Published late today, Tuesday, January 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:

Chief Justice Says Another $1.2 Billion Needed to Support Courts
By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – California’s courts need another $1.2 billion over the next three years and at least $266 million more this year just to stay open, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told reporters in unveiling a long term funding strategy for the judiciary today at the Capitol.

Flanked by lawmakers, judges and local business owners on the steps of the Supreme Court of California in Sacramento, Cantil-Sakauye said a recent increase of $105 million for the judiciary in Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget will not go far enough to mitigate five years of cuts and predicted a grim fiscal future for the courts.

“I am grateful and appreciative of the governor’s budget for the judicial branch. But in all candor, meaningful justice requires more,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “Today, a critical situation will become a desperate one. In 14-15 the judicial branch runs out of mitigation, runs out of any attempt and ability to backfill because our funds have been used up.”

President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said, “Sometimes budgets tend to be numbers on a piece of paper. When it comes to the courts, budgets are more than a piece of paper the people of California need its courts system at their time of greatest vulnerability.”

Steinberg said he was breaking his own rule in supporting the chief justice publicly, as he generally avoids press conferences about the budget during budget season. “I made an exception to my own general rule because of the absolute importance of access to justice for all Californians.”

Cantil-Sakauye’s three-year blueprint calls for $612 million this year to pay for more judges, update court technology and mitigate the affect of Brown’s sweep of the trial courts’ reserve funds.

But the blueprint also outlined what the judiciary would need just to maintain services at the current level, which it called “treading water.”

That figure is $266 million, and includes 5.2 million to eliminate furloughs for employees of the Supreme Court, appellate courts and Administrative Office of the Courts, and $35.5 million for a 2 percent cost of living adjustment for court and judicial branch employees, the majority going to trial court employees.

Also included in the $266 million figure is $197.3 million to offset what courts would be spending from reserve funds on operating costs, and $67.1 million for employee health benefits and retirement costs.

Representing the trial courts in the audience at the press conference were Presiding Judge Robert Hight, Assistant Judge Kevin Culhane and Judge James Mize of Sacramento.

Wieckowski told reporters that he intends to fight the governor’s plan to all but eliminate individual trial court reserve funds, rainy day money for budget shortfalls and other crises. “I am extremely concerned with the insistence on demanding that a one percent reserve for the court system be kept, and I thought we had a deal last year to go up to 12 percent,” he said. “As a member of the Assembly, I’ll continue to fight for that.”

The only people that think HRH-2 will prevail with her Blueprint for Justice scheme are the same chattering class of 455 Golden Gate insiders who only listen to each other and are tone deaf to the real world. It is also comforting to know that J Mize was helping HRH-2 out today, the same J Mize that sold the CJA down the river to benefit HRH-1 and Vickey and their agenda to take over everything in the branch. We have seen these grand HRH-2 PR stunts before and all end up in the same place, going nowhere. They go nowhere because the majority of legislators and Governor all know she has no credibility. She will always fail to fail because it’s the easiest thing to do.

Request for Proposal in support of Real Estate Appraisal Services, RFP# OREFM-2013-06-CC

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Office of Real Estate and Facilities Management (OREFM) seeks to identify and retain qualified Service Providers to determine the fair market value of existing court facilities and prospective court facility sites in California. This RFP is the means for prospective Service Providers to submit their qualifications, provide a detailed description of various types of appraisal reports that could be written to address various needs, which may include full reports for prospective land acquisitions; abbreviated replacement cost reports for valuation of existing court facilities; etc.; and provide pricing. The court facilities to be evaluated include courthouses, administrative and support offices, parking lots and/or structures, and undeveloped land located throughout the various counties of California. More than one Service Provider may be contracted to provide services.

WHAT: At a public meeting, the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee will receive an update on the Governor’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2014–2015 and will consider allocation recommendations related to new fee revenue, court-appointed dependency counsel fees, and criminal justice realignment funding. The advisory committee’s meeting agenda also includes consideration of recommendations from its funding methodology subcommittee on adjustments to the workload allocation funding methodology approved by the Judicial Council last April.

WHEN: Thursday, Jan 16, 2014; 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

WHERE: Judicial Council Conference Center, Hiram Johnson State Office Building, Third Floor, Ronald M. George State Office Complex, 455 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. A live audiocast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website.

WHO and WHY: The Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (roster) was appointed in June 2013 by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to advise the Judicial Council on the preparation, development, and implementation of the budget for California’s 58 trial courts and to provide input to the council on policy issues affecting trial court funding.

The advisory committee invites courts and the public to submit written comment in advance of the meeting or to request time to speak during the meeting’s comment period. Comments and speaking requests may be submitted via e-mail. Speakers will be scheduled in order of requests received. Depending upon demand, speakers may be time-limited at the discretion of the committee chairs.

More power to Governor Brown for wanting Queen Tani to be more fiscally responsible. And yes Wendy no one should believe any of them. Do any of these speakers other than gas bag insiders Steinberg and Evans have any idea that Queen Tani continues to waste millions on the Judicial Council and AOC and their bloated bureaucracy? Stay tuned for membership of the Blue Ribbon Commission.I can’t wait lol. Round up the usual 455 Golden Gate insiders. My guess is the list will include, Justice Miller, Justice Hull, Senator Steinberg, Judge So, Judge Mize ( he’s back again) , Judge Jackson,Judge Earl, Judge O’Malley, Mr Terry Friedman, The Court CEO’s of Santa Clara, Marin and San Diego and anybody else King George recommends. Please bookmark this entry and see how many of the insiders I actually get right. I will be right because as long as Queen Tani presides over this mess, nothing will ever change including her total lack of credibility.Thanks to King George and Queen Tani, all the King’s horsemen and all the King’s men can’t put this broken branch back together again.

A clip in the news on ol’ Jer’s thinking: critics said the Guv’s budget including 500 mil for county jails was a drop in the bucket in regards to the continuing overcrowding problem. Ol’ Jer responded that he thinks 500 mil is NOT a drop in the bucket, that that amount is more like an ocean …

When he saw the waste on CCMS, he must have seen it as an OCEAN of waste, not a drop, as the usual suspects must view it. I just wish Ol’ Jer would or could do something for our trial courts rather than slow the public funds spigot to the whiny brat bureaucrats at Golden Gate Avenue.

Lois Henry’s article on the California public info act. Looks like UCLA is taking notes from the acts of the thugs on Golden Gate Avenue. “Fun” exemptions upon exemptions. High-minded public bureaucrats keeping newspaper lawyers increasingly busy.

Hmmmm? Wonder if she could have been up there to also discuss, in person, how they are going to handle another fine mess they have gotten themselves into, along with the CJP. I’d show emails of the last few days, but JCW is right to keep the focus of this board on the “policy-writing body” and its adminis-trators.

What? Queen Tani sure has a way with words. Check these out. ” attempted mightily to mitigate , whats happened in fact, we haven’t had enough mitigation and backfill to impact the cuts for public service and public access” Huh? Honestly I don’t criticize people for intellectual `drawbacks but she is really in denial about everything that has to do do with being CJ. We need a new one .

Sacramento >> An attempt to pump more money into underfunded courthouses has died in committee.

Assembly Bill 1313, authored by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, would have paid for up to 12 additional courtroom staff positions in the counties with the greatest disparity between current staffing levels and those recommended by the Judicial Council, the California court system’s policy-making body.

“I can think of nothing more pressing than to ensure all Californians have access to constitutionally guaranteed justice,” Donnelly said. “It is unfortunate that some of my colleagues don’t agree with me.”

The bill, which was sponsored by Inland Empire and Central Valley legislators from both sides of the aisle, died in committee Tuesday.

In recent years, budgetary pressures forced the closure of courts across the state. San Bernardino County saw the closure of the Big Bear, Chino and Needles courthouses, and the Barstow courthouse going from five courtrooms open five days a week to one courtroom open three days a week. One of the courtrooms in Joshua Tree was also shut down. Juvenile traffic courts in Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino also shut down, and the juvenile traffic courts periodically held in Barstow, Big Bear and Joshua Tree have also come to an end, according to San Bernardino County Presiding Judge Marsha Slough.
“When I took the job as presiding judge in December of ‘12, we were facing a $23 million structural deficit. We were spending our reserves to fill the gap and that’s because of four and a half, five years actually, of cuts in our budget,” she said. “Our budget hole grew deeper every time we got cut.”

Court reporters were laid off, commissioner positions were dissolved and a hard hiring freeze was instituted. Seven judgeships that were approved several years ago have never been filled.

“We should have 156 judges, and we have 86 judicial officers: We have half of what we need,” Slough said. “So that’s why I was very encouraged by the attention that Ms. Brown and Mr. Donnelly were giving (the courts).”

AB 1313, had it been approved by the Legislature, would have been a “tremendous help,” she said.

The budget cuts have had real-world impacts for county residents beyond just lawyers and those charged with a crime, Slough said.

“If you want to change your custody order, we have to send it out to mediation first” under state law, she said. “Because of our staffing issues, people would literally have to wait four to five months for mediation before (they) could return to court. That’s a lifetime for a child.”
And for residents in more remote corners of the largest county in the lower 48 states, getting justice is more expensive and less convenient than ever.
“Some residents in San Bernardino County will have to travel two hours to get their day in court,” Donnelly said.

Even without AB 1313, there may be light at the end of the tunnel, Slough said.

“We got more ($60 million) money last year, and with all of our cuts, we have effectively closed our budget gap,” she said. “Not quite, but almost.”

And there’s $100 million more for trial courts in Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget, which he unveiled last week.

“I feel we are beginning to come out of this horrific financial situation – the worst financial situation this court has ever faced,” Slough said.